# Atheism is now legally a religion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811 "2014-11-05T22:45:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/201 "2014-11-07T15:07:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, and in doing so they are assuming that there is cause involved. If not, in what way are they using scientific inquiry? They are assuming no such thing at that point. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/202 "2014-11-07T15:19:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There are two different realms: the natural world and the supra-natural world. Causation is tied to the former. Cite on this supernatural world and its existence? There is as much evidence for the supernatural in general as there is specifically, i.e. none. > [@magellan01](#): > > Because, in our world, the natural one, you can’t have an cause that was not itself caused. What makes you think this? Our understanding of the universe is still pretty damn poor, but as an example what causes nuclear decay to happen when it does? > [@magellan01](#): > > Because ultimately you need something that that does not need a cause to exist. Only if you think there absolutely has to be a cause at the beginning of everything instead of taking the proper scientific approach and saying “I don’t know” > [@magellan01](#): > > Also, when I talk about God/god, I’m tying it to nothing. Assume that everything we know about every religion we’ve ever heard about is 100% wrong. This at least is fair, I get that you are playing the devils advocate here, the arguments have all been heard and hashed out many times on this board though. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/203 "2014-11-07T16:12:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, and in doing so they are assuming that there is cause involved. If not, in what way are they using scientific inquiry? And pray tell, how does “God” solve the issue of causality ? _Causa sui_ is just handwaving the question away, and as an argument it lies somewhere at the junction between epistemologically fucked and downright insulting. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/204 "2014-11-07T16:24:17Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > And do you know what a _scientist_ doesn’t say at this point? “We don’t know _yet_, but we’re pretty sure it was God.” > > 'Cause, ya know, we have no evidence for this “God” thing. > > CMC fnord! I would argue that there is indirect evidence. That being that everything in our world has a cause. Everything. That is the basis of our knowledge set. So to point to an even and all of a sudden take the position that, THAT, that thing has no cause flies in the face of logic. Assuming a God/god, a supra-natural force that is not bound by our “natural laws” seems to me to be much less of a leap than pointing to one event and claiming it has no cause. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/205 "2014-11-07T16:27:00Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > And pray tell, how does “God” solve the issue of causality ? _Causa sui_ is just handwaving the question away, and as an argument it lies somewhere at the junction between epistemologically fucked and downright insulting. See: [William Lane Craig](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C4%81m_Cosmological_Argument) and [The Kalām Cosmological Argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument)! CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/206 "2014-11-07T16:27:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I would argue that there is indirect evidence. That being that everything in our world has a cause. Everything. That is the basis of our knowledge set. So to point to an even and all of a sudden take the position that, THAT, that thing has no cause flies in the face of logic. > > Assuming a God/god, a supra-natural force that is not bound by our “natural laws” seems to me to be much less of a leap than pointing to one event and claiming it has no cause. Even if we totally accept “everything has a cause”, that doesn’t point to god or anything supernatural. Insisting there must be a “first cause” (rather than some sort of infinite sequence) is handwaving, and even if it wasn’t, insisting that the first cause must necessarily be supernatural is handwaving, and even if that wasn’t, insisting this supernatural cause must be God is even more handwaving. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/207 "2014-11-07T16:31:44Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > And pray tell, how does “God” solve the issue of causality ? _Causa sui_ is just handwaving the question away, and as an argument it lies somewhere at the junction between epistemologically fucked and downright insulting. The universe either has a cause or it does not have a cause, correct? The universe is one of a trillion things we are aware of. Can you point to any of them that does not have a cause. Do you think the Big Bang happened? If so, why did it happen when it did 14 billion years ago and not 30 2 billion years ago? Something at T-1 14 billion years ago must have been different than some point in time 32 billion years ago, no? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/208 "2014-11-07T16:35:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I would argue that there is indirect evidence. That being that everything in our world has a cause. Everything. That is the basis of our knowledge set. {…} Right, a knowledge set that does not include actual evidence of anything outside of our causal, temporal, physical, universe. “We don’t know” in no way opens the door for anything else. CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/209 "2014-11-07T16:35:55Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > They are assuming no such thing at that point. Explain to me how your scientists in tend to discover ANYTHING if not be using the scientific method? And as they examine a point in time whether it’s the Big Bang, the formation of the elements, the norther lights, whatever, don’t they seek to understand it by looking at events closely associated with it? Just how do you think we’ve learned about all the things we know about? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/210 "2014-11-07T16:37:15Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > [QUOTE=bup] > But dogmatism certainly exists among atheists, and it’s just as annoying in them as theists. Not in any meaningful way. [/QUOTE] Oh, sure, in a meaningful way. They believe there’s no god or gods, and they get obnoxious and smug about it, and _you’d better believe that too_ or you will be ridiculed. For the record, no, I’m not dogmatic about vampires. I’m certain they don’t exist, but I’m not a dick about it if somebody else thinks they do. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/211 "2014-11-07T16:40:36Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Right, a knowledge set that does not include actual evidence of anything outside of our causal, temporal, physical, universe. > CMC fnord! Yes. But when we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory, we use scientific principles to try to grasp this new territory. Whether it’s traveling to the moon, contemplating deep space travel, or trying to understand what goes on at the deepest, darkest recesses of the ocean, we assume that certain principles will still apply. Top among them is causation. The events are caused by preceding events. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/212 "2014-11-07T16:46:05Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > Cite on this supernatural world and its existence? There is as much evidence for the supernatural in general as there is specifically, i.e. none. Are you Mr. A. Square, living in Flatland? > [@Critical1](#): > > What makes you think this? Our understanding of the universe is still pretty damn poor, but as an example what causes nuclear decay to happen when it does? Wait. Are you of the mind that there is no cause, no explanation, for nuclear decay? On what basis do you think that might be the case? > [@Critical1](#): > > Only if you think there absolutely has to be a cause at the beginning of everything instead of taking the proper scientific approach and saying “I don’t know” Oh, I agree we don’t know. Absolutely. I’m not challenging that, I am challenging the notion that atheism is a more logical default philosophy than theism. > [@Critical1](#): > > This at least is fair, I get that you are playing the devils advocate here, the arguments have all been heard and hashed out many times on this board though. Treu that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/213 "2014-11-07T16:47:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The universe either has a cause or it does not have a cause, correct? The universe is one of a trillion things we are aware of. Can you point to any of them that does not have a cause. Do you think the Big Bang happened? If so, why did it happen when it did 14 billion years ago and not 30 2 billion years ago? Something at T-1 14 billion years ago must have been different than some point in time 32 billion years ago, no? Even if we assume it has a cause, this tells us nothing about the nature of the cause. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/214 "2014-11-07T16:57:12Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Right, a knowledge set that does not include actual evidence of anything outside of our causal, temporal, physical, universe. But that does not mean that things do not exist outside our knowledge set. Now, it would be one thing to say that a specific thing exists, say a flying cat with a top hat. But it is another to make the best educated guess. If I show a new shoebox in a shopping bag, you do not KNOW what is in that box. But it’s a better guess to say “shoes” than “a carburetor”. The question as to what the most reasonable default position is—beyond “I don’t know”—should be directed from the knowledge set we have. And right now, we have zero things that we can point to that have no cause. That suggests that everything has a cause, including the universe. Of course, that may be wrong, but it is a erasable and logical deduction. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > “We don’t know” in no way opens the door for anything else. > > CMC fnord! Sure it does. Just because take the position you do not know, in no way means that an explanation exists, perhaps many logical explanations. And most important, one correct explanation. Whether you will ever discover it or not is beside the point. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/215 "2014-11-07T16:57:17Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > See: [William Lane Craig](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal%C4%81m_Cosmological_Argument) and [The Kalām Cosmological Argument](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument)! > > CMC fnord! Yeah, I stand firmly by my original assessment based on the Wiki synopsis of the arguments put forward :p. Also : > [@](#): > > [ol] > [li]Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).[/li][li]The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.[/li][li]Therefore, the universe has a cause.[/li][/ol] > **Following Al-Ghāzāli, Craig argues that this cause must be a personal will** Sure, I mean that’s just the next logical step, right ? :rolleyes: [QUOTE=magellan01] The universe either has a cause or it does not have a cause, correct? The universe is one of a trillion things we are aware of. Can you point to any of them that does not have a cause. Do you think the Big Bang happened? If so, why did it happen when it did 14 billion years ago and not 30 2 billion years ago? Something at T-1 14 billion years ago must have been different than some point in time 32 billion years ago, no? [/QUOTE] “Therefore God” only moves the problem one step earlier, bunk. Why did God happen, what is God-1 and so forth. From there two possibilities : a) you assert that God is its own cause, in which case you implicitly admit that there can be a causeless effect, in which case why would the Big Bang not be just that ? b) you assert (as Catholic theology does) that God has always existed in an absolute and perfect form, divorced from and beyond the concepts of time and space ; which is indistinguishable from meaningless gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/216 "2014-11-07T16:59:54Z")
As an atheist, I want the protection of a religion but not the responsibility of being a religion ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/217 "2014-11-07T17:01:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Even if we assume it has a cause, this tells us nothing about the nature of the cause. Agreed. When talking about the universe. It might be that we shot out of a black whole from another universe. It might be that a guy in flowing robes with a magic wand said “presto” and here we are. Or any of a trillion things between the two, plus more. But even if this universe was birthed from a black whole from another universe, that just moves the question back, what caused that universe? Yes, it turtles down and down until we get to the cause you say we do not know the nature of. But, once you assume a cause—a first cause—by definition it must be something not itself subject to the law of causation. It must be supra-natural. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/218 "2014-11-07T17:06:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But even if this universe was birthed from a black whole from another universe, that just moves the question back, what caused that universe? Yes, it turtles down and down until we get to the cause you say we do not know the nature of. But, once you assume a cause—a first cause—by definition it must be something not itself subject to the law of causation. It must be supra-natural. Why must we assume a first cause? If we do assume a first cause, then why must we assume it’s supernatural? It seems just as likely that our assumptions about causation might be wrong as something existing outside the physical and observable universe. It seems like a “just because” argument. There’s nothing logically that indicates there must be a first cause, and there’s nothing logically that would indicate that if there was a first cause, that it was supernatural. Alternately, it’s a tautological argument – you’re defining “God” as this “first cause”, whatever it happens to be. Which ignores the problem of why we need a first cause to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/219 "2014-11-07T17:08:30Z")
Further – **magellan01** – you propose that nothing exists without a cause. I don’t necessarily agree, but that’s okay… in such discussions it’s okay to make that kind of proposition. But I’ll counter with another proposition – nothing exists outside the natural world, and nothing exists that is not bound by the laws of physics. Why is your proposition more logically necessary or more logically valid than mine? We certainly have no evidence for anything outside the natural world, or anything not bound by physics. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/220 "2014-11-07T18:23:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I would argue that there is indirect evidence. That being that everything in our world has a cause. Everything. That is the basis of our knowledge set. So to point to an even and all of a sudden take the position that, THAT, that thing has no cause flies in the face of logic. Someone with more knowledge than me about quantum issues will likely be in to rebut the “Everything.” point; they usually do. But taking this argument at face value; it’s also correct to say that there are no supra-natural things in the world. That’s another basis of our knowledge set. Your own suggestion fails the same standard. Edit: Also\*\* iiandyiii\*\* made the same exact point. I cannot read. D’oh. I think that’s the issue with your “there must be a first cause” point. The problem is; all things must have a cause, but there can be no infinite backstring (which is another point of contention, but we’ll put that to one side for now). You’re pointing out that suggesting there is such a thing as a prime causer means _breaking_ that rule, and on that basis it’s flawed. But your alternative suggestion, a supra-natural prime causer, _also breaks that rule_. All adding supra-natural does is adjectivise a reason for why the rule gets broken - it doesn’t invalidate the rulebreaking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=12)